Slog - Comments on Lornet Turnbull, Seattle Times Staff Reporter

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:45:58 -0800

She has a point.

Comment by BB

BB — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:46:33 -0800

Omigod! You guys are like SO cutting edge!!!!

Comment by frederick r

frederick r — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:52:45 -0800

You know what? Lornet is not a public figure, and I don't care if she called. Posting this is just exploitive.

Comment by Gomez

Gomez — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:55:58 -0800

The irony is that she wouldn't have ended up on Slog had she just sent a fucking e-mail. Writers don't post that crap unless it's a news item or just totally insane.

Comment by michael strangeways

michael strangeways — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:57:01 -0800

piss on her...if she's 'embarassed' to be on Slog and ergo being associated with the Stranger, but she wants info out of them for her own purposes, she gets what she deserves...

Comment by Josh Feit

Josh Feit — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:04:14 -0800

Lornet could have e-mailed and said: Not For Publication. People do that all the time, and the conversations don't end up on Slog. If Lornet hadn't made a deal about it to Brad, I'm sure Dan wouldn't have pulled his minor stunt.

@3,
Not a "Public Figure" ... "exploitive" ... ???
That's some high-falutin talk that isn't even relevant here. This isn't about libel or privacy. A reporter called and left a message. How is Lornet being harmed in any way by Dan's goofy post?

Comment by genevieve

genevieve — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:10:56 -0800

I don't think there's any harm in Dan's post...but now I'm curious. Why is saying "I don't want to end up on Slog" different that emailing "Not For Publication"? Quite frankly, if I were sending something to the Stranger, I would assume anything marked NFP would trigger a Slog post, just as Turnbull's verbal request did.

Comment by Mikel

Mikel — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:12:04 -0800

So are we going to see a mention of her article when it airs?

Comment by Quoting Oscar Wilde

Quoting Oscar Wilde — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:13:26 -0800

She's a writer at a daily newspaper and she's covering the pride parade fiasco. Not exactly a private person. She's playing a public role. And Dan's email is a good humored joke.

Comment by Jude Fawley

Jude Fawley — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:59:41 -0800

I don't really care about this specific issue one way or another, but I have a journalism question for Josh:

Is writing "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" and knowing that it will be respected an actual standard among journalists? I assume so if you say that she could have written the email and just put that at the top and not had to worry.

If the answer is yes, does that apply to phone calls, too? Can I say, "This conversation is not for publication" and trust that it will not be slogged? I think this is known as talking off the record. If yes proceed to next question.

By saying she didn't want the email slogged, wasn't she really saying she didn't want her call slogged, thus asking the communication to be off the record. If yes, wasn't slogging a breach of trust?

I am wondering because I wonder about contacting media about other important issues where I don't want to be named as a source. What if a journalist says, "Well, you said you didn't want the conversation on the record, but you didn't say anything about our phone call, so thats why your name ended up in the paper (or blog) today."

Just wondering.

Comment by infrquent

infrquent — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:09:34 -0800

this post is not for publication.

Comment by elswinger

elswinger — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:55:06 -0800

If she had written "NOT FOR PUBLICATION", Dan would have used a larger font.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:03:52 -0800

I would have commented, but it's not for publication.

Oh, wait, I did.

Never mind.

Comment by Naomi

Naomi — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:17:47 -0800

Though I love this forum, I know how she feels...

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:27:01 -0800

Pfft. You call this "ending up on the Slog"? Hah! Pathetic. What, are you going to just stand there? You're going to have to do better than this to compete with the likes of me, Ms. Lornet Turnbull.

Comment by Josh Feit

Josh Feit — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:38:05 -0800

Jude@10,

If someone says the conversation isn't for publication, it doesn't get Slogged.

The thing I think is getting confused here is this: Turnbull didn't want a back and forth with Dan on Slog. She told Brad that. Brad told Dan that. Dan Slogged that.

Dan didn't Slog any off-the-record conversation he had with Turnbull.

I'm not sure if Slog-shy Turnbull would be willing to weigh in here, but my guess is that she'd agree: Dan didn't do anything that wasn't Kosher other than post a goofy prank.

This conversation is really weird.

Comment by Editor's note

Editor's note — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:36:45 -0800

Har har!
Dan really made fun of that person.

You see, the Stranger has ethics. It's off the record if they feel like, or don't. So if you don't get it, tough luck, we might Slog you, sucka!

Speaking of video, anyone see Josh at the P-I lately?

Comment by innocent bystander

innocent bystander — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:06:06 -0800

Doesn't the LGBT e-mail say, in essence, "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" on it? the fuck are you talking about, Josh?

Comment by arduous

arduous — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:16:28 -0800

@18, the difference is that the LGBT email wasn't sent to The Stranger, it was leaked to them. So, they aren't breaking any source/reporter confidentiality. Had the LGBT center emailed them directly, and asked them to keep the contents of said email confidential, they couldn't have slogged it.

Comment by Paulus

Paulus — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:23:07 -0800

If she had written "NOT FOR PUBLICATION", Dan would have used a larger font.

It would have been the same font, just a larger size.

Comment by Dan sits up straight

Dan sits up straight — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:03:54 -0800

Now if the Op-Ed editor had called, Dan would have acted MUCH differently. "Yes, sir, be right there sir."

That's his altar boy act